Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Scalise, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the section-by-section analysis of the resolution.

H. Res. 5

Adopting the Rules for the 118th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Adoption of the Rules of the One Hundred

Seventeenth Congress.

This section provides that the Rules of the 117th Congress

are the Rules of the 118th Congress, except for the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in the resolution.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.

Subsection (a)(l) replaces current ``pay-as-you-go''

requirements with ``cut-as-you-go'' requirements. The

provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint

resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net

effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or

ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current

practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to

a special order of business which directs the Clerk to

engross the measures together after passage for purposes of

compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for

addressing ``emergency'' designations.

Subsection (a)(2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that

provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the

Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,

upon the adoption by the House of a concurrent resolution on

the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in

the House on the public debt limit legislation.

Subsection (a)(3) restores a point of order against net

increase in budget authority for amendments to general

appropriations bills.

Subsection (a)(4) restores a point of order against budget

reconciliation directives that increase net direct spending.

Increased Threshold for Tax Rate Increases. Subsection (b)

restores a requirement for a three-fifths supermajority vote

on tax rate increases.

Two Minute Votes. Subsection (c) provides that the Speaker

can reduce vote times in the House to not less than two

minutes on any question that follows another electronic vote.

The subsection also states that to the maximum extent

practicable, advance notice will be given when reduced voting

times are expected in a voting series.

Modifications to Calendar Wednesday. Subsection (d)

modifies the notice requirement to use Calendar Wednesday to

conform with the 72-hour notice requirement prior to

consideration of legislation.

Committee Authorization and Oversight Plans. Subsection (e)

restores the requirement that each standing committee (except

the Committees on Appropriations, Ethics, and Rules) vote to

adopt an authorization and oversight plan, which must be

submitted to the Committees on Oversight and Accountability

and House Administration no later than March 1 of the first

session of a Congress. The plan must include a list of

unauthorized programs and agencies within the committee's

jurisdiction that have received funding in the prior fiscal

year, or in the case of a permanent authorization, have not

received a comprehensive review by the committee in the prior

three Congresses. The subsection requires committees to

describe each program or agency that is intended to be

authorized in the current Congress or next Congress, and a

description of oversight to support reauthorization in the

current Congress. The subsection also requires the

plan include any recommendations for moving such programs or

agencies from mandatory to discretionary funding. When

developing these plans, committee chairs must coordinate with

other committees of jurisdiction to ensure that programs and

agencies are subject to routine authorization efforts.

The subsection also provides that committee authorization

and oversight plans may make recommendations to consolidate

or terminate duplicative or unnecessary programs and

agencies. Committees may make recommendations for changes to

existing law to address Federal rules, regulations, statutes,

and court decisions related to programs that are inconsistent

with Congress' Article I authorities, as well as provide a

description of other oversight activities that may be

necessary.

The subsection also requires the Committee on Oversight and

Accountability to report to the House no later than April 15

the authorization and oversight plans submitted by committees

together with any recommendations it may make to ensure

effective coordination of the plans.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Include

Macroeconomic Effects. Subsection (f) restores the

requirement that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint

Committee on Taxation, to the extent practicable, incorporate

the macroeconomic effects of major legislation into the

official cost estimates used for enforcing the budget

resolution and other rules of the House. The subsection

requires, to the extent practicable, a qualitative assessment

of the long-term budgetary and macroeconomic effects of major

legislation, which is defined to cover legislation that

causes a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by

the budget resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25

percent of the projected GDP for that year. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in

the case of revenue legislation the House member serving

as the Chair or Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on

Taxation, to designate major legislation for purposes of

this rule.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (g) directs the Committee on

Ethics to adopt rules which provide for a process to receive

complaints directly from the public.

Empaneling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on

Ethics. Subsection (h) codifies House Resolution 451, 110th

Congress, directing the Committee on Ethics to empanel an

investigative subcommittee or issue a report within 30 days

of the date a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner

is indicted, or criminal charges are filed.

Treatment of Evidence in Committee and Subcommittee

Investigations. Subsection (i) eliminates a requirement that

the Committee on Ethics adopt a rule allowing the use during

an ethics investigation of evidence presented in a related

criminal case where the respondent was convicted because this

is already contained in the committee rules of the Committee

on Ethics.

Designating Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Subsection (j) redesignates the Committee on Oversight and

Reform as the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Designating Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subsection (k) redesignates the Committee on Education and

Labor as the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subcommittees of Committee on Agriculture. Subsection (1)

permits the Committee on Agriculture to have six

subcommittees, codifying a separate order in effect since the

114th Congress.

Cybersecurity. Subsection (m) modifies the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Homeland Security to include functions of

the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity.

Committees currently holding jurisdiction over cybersecurity

functions of DHS will retain a shared jurisdictional interest

in such functions.

Scope of Authority to Act in Continuing Litigation Matters.

Subsection (n) eliminates ``including, but not limited to,

the issuance of subpoenas'' in the description of authority

to act as successor-in-interest in continuing litigation

matters, such language being superfluous.

Record Votes on Measures Reported by the Committee on

Rules. Subsection (o) requires reports from the Committee on

Rules to include a depiction of recorded votes.

Access to the Hall of the House. Subsection (p) strikes

language providing Governors of Territories and the Mayor of

the District of Columbia access to the Hall of the House.

Resolution Declaring the Office of Speaker Vacant.

Subsection (q) strikes language from rule IX to allow any

member to offer a privileged resolution declaring the Office

of Speaker vacant.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Holman Rule. Subsection (a) reinstates the ``Holman Rule''

which allows amendments to appropriations legislation that

would reduce the salary of or fire specific federal

employees, or cut a specific program.

Restoring Legislative Branch Accountability. Subsection (b)

states regulations adopted pursuant to House Resolution 1096,

117th Congress will have no force or effect in the 118th

Congress.

Requirement with Respect to Single Subject Bill. Subsection

(c) provides that, effective February 1, 2023, a bill or

joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor

submits a statement setting forth the single subject of the

bill or joint resolution. This statement must be included

with the statement required by clause 7(c) of rule XII

(Constitutional Authority Statements). A statement for any

bill or joint resolution introduced prior to the effective

date shall, to the extent practicable, be submitted by the

sponsor prior to committee or House consideration.

Question of Consideration for Germanenes. Subsection (d)

establishes a question of consideration on a special rule

that waives germaneness for an amendment. The question of

consideration is debatable for 20 minutes and is not subject

to any intervening motion.

Budget Matter. Subsection (e)(l)(A) provides the authority

for the chair of the Committee on the Budget to file

allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary

levels for the purpose of enforcing provisions of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Additionally, this

subsection states that the provisions of S. Con. Res. 14,

117th Congress shall have no force or effect.

Subsection (e)(l)(B) provides adjustment authority to the

chair of the Committee on the Budget for a bill, joint

resolution, amendment thereto, or conference report thereon

if the measure does not increase direct spending over five

or ten years. It additionally provides adjustment

authority to the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

take into account the most recent baseline published by

the Congressional Budget Office.

Subsection (e)(1)(C) allows the Majority Leader or his

designee, should the chair of the Committee on the Budget not

yet be elected, to file statements permitted under

subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B).

Subsection (e)(1)(D) allows the chair of the Committee on

the Budget (or the Majority Leader or his designee, should

the chair not yet be elected) to adjust an estimate under

clause 4 of rule XXIX to exempt the budgetary effects of

measures to protect taxpayers with taxable incomes below

$400,000 from an increase in audits above the most recent tax

year from the Internal Revenue Service.

Subsection (e)(2) establishes a point of order against

consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a

committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an

amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has

the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of

$2,500,000,000 for any of the four consecutive 10 fiscal year

periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10

fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The levels of net

increases in direct spending shall be determined based on

estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the

Budget.

Subsection (e)(3) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation that shows changes in mandatory spending

which cause a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year

covered by the budget resolution that is equal to or greater

than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP for the current fiscal

year, to the extent practicable, to provide an estimate of

the inflationary impacts of that legislation. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

designate major legislation for purposes of this order.

Subsection (e)(4) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation impacting either the Medicare Part A trust

fund or OASDI trust fund that causes a gross budgetary effect

in any fiscal year covered by the budget resolution that is

equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP

for the current fiscal year, to the extent practicable, to

display: (1) the impact of legislation on the Medicare Part A

trust fund's unfunded liabilities over a 25-year projection,

solvency projections, and the net present value of those

liabilities; and (2) the impact on the OASDI trust fund's

unfunded liabilities over a 75-year projection, solvency

projections, and the net present value of those liabilities.

This subsection also allows the chair of the Committee on the

Budget to designate major legislation for purposes of this

order.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (f) provides for spending reduction account

transfer amendments and requires a spending reduction account

section to be included in all general appropriations bills.

Scoring Conveyances of Federal Land. Subsection (g)

reinstates the separate order from the 115th Congress

providing that any provision in a bill, joint resolution,

amendment, or conference report requiring or authorizing a

conveyance of federal land to a State, local government, or

tribal entity, shall not be considered as providing new

budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory

spending, or increasing outlays.

Member Day Hearing Requirement. Subsection (h) modifies the

Member Day hearing requirement to only occur at the full

committee level. Each standing committee (other than the

Committee on Ethics) must hold a Member Day Hearing during

the first session of the 118th Congress to receive testimony

from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on

proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. The subsection

permits the Committee on Rules to hold its Member Day Hearing

during the second session to receive testimony on proposed

changes to the standing rules for the next Congress.

Information to Committees of Congress on Request.

Subsection (i) requires that the chair of the Committee on

Oversight and Accountability be included as one of the seven

members of the committee making any request of an Executive

agency pursuant to section 2954 of title 5, United States

Code.

Remote Appearance of Witnesses. Subsection (j) provides

limited authorization to a chair

of a committee to allow witnesses to appear remotely at

committee and subcommittee proceedings. This subsection

applies only to witnesses appearing in a non-governmental

capacity and in accordance with regulations issued by the

chair of the Committee on Rules and printed in the

Congressional Record.

Deposition Authority. Subsection (k) provides the Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence and each standing committee

of the 118th Congress (except for the Committee on Rules) the

authority to order the taking of a deposition by a member or

counsel of such committee and limits persons who can attend

depositions to members, committee staff, an official

reporter, the witness, and up to two, personal,

nongovernmental attorneys. Depositions taken under this

authority are subject to regulations issued by the chair of

the Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional

Record.

Broadening Availability and Utility of Legislative

Documents in Machine-Readable Formats. Subsection (l)

instructs the Committee on House Administration, the Clerk,

an other officers and officials to advance

government transparency by continuing efforts to publish

documents of the House in machinereadable formats and

broaden their utility by enabling all House staff to

create comparative prints.

Improving the Committee Electronic Document Repository.

Subsection (m) directs the Clerk, the Committee on House

Administration, and other officers and officials to continue

to improve the existing electronic document repository

operated by the Clerk for use by committees. Such

improvements are intended to increase public availability and

identification of legislative information produced by House

committees, including votes, amendments, and witness

disclosure forms.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (n) carries forward provisions that

clarify the procedures of the House regarding the receipt of

Article V memorials from the States by directing the Clerk to

make each memorial, designated by the chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary, electronically available, organized by

State of origin and year of receipt, and indicate whether the

memorial was designated as an application or rescission.

In carrying out this subsection, it is expected that the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary will be solely

charged with determining whether a memorial purports to be an

application of the legislature of a state calling for a

constitutional convention or rescission of prior

applications. The Clerk's role will be entirely

administrative. The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will only designate memorials from state legislatures (and

not petitions from individuals or other parties), as it is

only state legislatures that are contemplated under Article V

of the Constitution.

In submitting each memorial to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

that indicates it has been designated under this subsection.

The Clerk will make publicly available the memorial and the

transmission letter from the chair. Ancillary documentation

from the state or other parties is not expected to be

publicized.

War Powers Resolution. Subsection (o) continues a separate

order from the 117th Congress expressly providing that any

motion to discharge a measure introduced pursuant to section

6 or section 7 of the War Powers Resolution is not subject to

a motion to table.

Further Expenses for Resolving Contested Elections.

Subsection (p) authorizes such sums as may be necessary for

the Committee on House Administration to resolve contested

elections. Funds shall be available for expenses incurred

between January 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024. Amounts made

available under this subsection shall be expended in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on

House Administration.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (q) directs the Speaker to

establish a bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive

review of House ethics rules and regulations. The task force

is directed to submit a report to the Speaker, Majority

Leader, Minority Leader, and chair and ranking minority

members of the Committees on Ethics and Rules.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (r)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, Delegates, the

Resident Commissioner, former Members, former Delegates,

former Resident Commissioners, officers, and former officers

of the House and their spouses to any former Member, former

Delegate, former Resident Commissioner, former officer, or

spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying

Disclosure Act of 1995 or any successor statute, or who is an

agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause 5 of rule

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I begin by thanking my good friend from Massachusetts for his leadership of the Rules Committee over the last 4 years. While we certainly haven't always agreed, we have tried to always be agreeable while working with one another. I certainly associate myself with his remarks about the terrific work of the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping us facilitate the operation of the House over that 4-year period. I look forward again to working with my friend in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the rules resolution that will govern the House during the 118th Congress.

Determining the rules we will follow is one of the first and most consequential decisions we must make as a body at the beginning of each Congress. In many ways, the Rules of the House of Representatives serve to demonstrate where our priorities and values lie as an institution.

Make no mistake, the priorities of the new Republican majority are fully on display in this resolution.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to reopen the people's House and ensure that we, the people's elected servants, are here in Washington, D.C., doing our jobs.

For far too long, the House allowed Members to do their jobs from home without ever setting foot in Washington. What started out as a pandemic accommodation lasted far longer than necessary, but today, even President Biden admits that the pandemic is over.

It is time for the House of Representatives to return to our normal operating procedures, and it is time for the Members of Congress to actually show up to work. Today's rules package eliminates proxy voting and puts an end to remote committee proceedings.

We restore the requirement for committees to establish plans for how they will conduct much-needed oversight. Republicans have robust plans to ensure that we will hold the Biden administration accountable for its actions, but being a counterbalance to the administration will not stop there. With today's rules package, we will also establish a new select subcommittee, modeled on the Church Committee, to investigate the radical left's weaponization of the Federal Government in recent years.

We will also modify the jurisdiction of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to ensure we investigate the origins of the virus and finally look into the financial and societal impacts of shutdowns.

We will establish a Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to respond to threats posed by the CCP, ensure economic competitiveness for America, and protect human rights.

Other important changes in this resolution are those that are designed to address our out-of-control spending problem, which the former majority made vastly worse last Congress. In fact, when Democrats were in control of this Chamber, they spent so much money through partisan bills that they managed to drive this country into an inflationary crisis. Those aren't my words; those are the words of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

The American people elected Republicans to get our fiscal house in order, and get our fiscal house in order we will. That starts with making key changes to House rules to ensure we will instill some fiscal sanity in Congress. These changes reflect a return to budgetary rules that were in place for over a decade before Democrats removed them.

We will restore the CutGo rule, which requires us to offset any increase in mandatory spending with a corresponding cut in mandatory spending. No more will the House be able to use budget gimmicks and tricks to pretend increases in mandatory spending are paid for when they actually are not.

We will restore a requirement for a three-fifths majority to approve any tax rate increase. If this rule had been in place, the House would not have passed the massive tax increases the Democrats included in last year's reconciliation bill.

We will eliminate the so-called Gephardt rule, which allows the House to automatically suspend the debt ceiling upon passage of a budget resolution. Just as the American people have to live within their means, so, too, should the Federal Government.

Automatically suspending the debt limit may be the easy and expedient way, but on a matter as important as the national debt limit, what is easy and expedient is hardly appropriate. The American people expect us to make a decision on the national debt limit only after full and fair consideration and debate in the House. That starts with ensuring it will receive a separate, standalone vote on the floor.

Finally, we will remove the rule that allowed Democrats to simply ignore budget estimates for bills dealing with the COVID pandemic or climate change. Although it may sound controversial to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans cannot and will not thrust our heads in the sand and ignore the effects of out-of-control Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but on the whole, I am very proud of today's rule package. It reflects Republican priorities and the priorities of the voters who elected us. It reopens this institution and ensures that all Members will be in Washington to do their work, as our constituents expect. It ensures that we will hold the Biden administration and the Chinese Communist Party accountable. It ensures that we will get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the rules package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my very good friend who had so much to do with some of the extraordinary changes in this rules package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to postpone the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 5 to a designated time later today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question relating to House Resolution 5 that follows a 15-minute vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution establishing the rules of the 118th Congress. The changes we are proposing today will ensure that the institution is set on a path of success for the new Congress.

They will ensure that Members return to Washington and do their work here.

They will set up an institution to hold the Biden administration accountable.

They will put in place budgetary rules designed to prevent the kind of reckless spending spree Democrats recently engaged in.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the time to address the House.

Isn't it outstanding, Madam Speaker, to see the people's House open, once again, to the public, have the public in our galleries, and see the Capitol open to our families.

That is a big change after the years of the pandemic and our Chamber being closed from the citizens and families who send us here to Washington. So that is a great way to have seen this House under Republican majority leadership open the week.

As we close this first week under Republican leadership back in the majority on this House floor, it is also good to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle put a premium on talking about bipartisanship.

I particularly like my friend from Ohio (Mr. Landsman) and Mr. Sorensen of Illinois, two new freshman Members on the House floor for the first time this week as fully sworn Members of Congress talking about their priorities as newly elected Democrats and seeking bipartisanship on this side of the aisle.

This week the House has taken two important steps regarding our strategic competition with the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP, and, Madam Speaker, those steps on this House floor were overwhelmingly bipartisan.

First, we created a Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the CCP, which is our vision of an integrated, open, and free world where people can celebrate their religion, people can travel, and people can trade. That strategic competition presses the Western values of Europe and the United States with the more narrow and authoritarian view of the Chinese Communist Party.

Secondly, we prevented oil being released from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and that being sold to Communist China. Today over 320 Members of this body agreed with that by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 22.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has played an important role in U.S. energy and national security policy for four decades. It was created in response to the Arab oil embargo in the early 1970s which resulted in the tripling of oil prices at the time.

Since that time, the SPR has remained a backstop for the United States in case of oil supply disruption.

Madam Speaker, those on the other side of the aisle talked about America becoming the largest exporting nation in the world and that somehow that is a bad thing and that we freed our ability to export oil and gas outside the U.S., as if that were a bad thing. It is not.

They are two completely different issues. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is there for an emergency affecting the United States, our citizens, our households, our industry, principally in case of a Gulf hurricane or a disruption in a pipeline, or in some other aspect of oil and gas disruption from war or an accident somewhere in the world. It is not meant to be supplying oil, per se, to everybody besides the United States.

Just over the last year, President Biden has released 180 million barrels of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, bringing it down to a 1985 level, a four-decade low. This is not smart economic policy or energy policy in this country.

In fact, Madam Speaker, over 1 million barrels went to a Chinese- affiliated company. At the same time, China is reportedly holding its own crude oil reserves of 900 million barrels.

Anyone with realistic knowledge and expectations in and around the debate about climate change or energy policy knows that this administration's energy policies have hurt American families and put our economy at risk while at the same time weakening the globe's interest in fighting climate change.

President Biden's failed policies to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, deny permits, discourage new drilling, discourage new pipeline construction, and, through his bank and securities environmental, social, and governance policies, so-called ESG policies, that, too, has discouraged badly needed capital investment to go to our energy industry and has weakened American global leadership and our strategic benefit, as referenced by my friends on the other side of the aisle, of energy independence. President Biden has weakened our energy independence.

Instead, the Biden administration has doubled down, even tripled down, on these bad policies that have not only raised costs on every American but do nothing in the long run to impact climate.

While President Biden's nanny-state regulators this week considered outlawing your gas stove in your home or in your kitchen or your restaurant, Republicans on this House floor began their first step at unleashing an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

We have to let that sink in, that a Federal regulator actually considered a serious policy proposal of banning you from having a gas stove in your home or in your restaurant. I mean, everyone in America was shaking their heads this week with the preposterous nature of that new idea from the Biden administration.

Republicans believe in an all-of-the-above strategy, which benefits America and benefits the globe, and we must continue to invest in energy development in order to make it through a full global transition.

First, we have to keep investing in natural gas. We have natural gas fields across our Nation from the West Coast to the East Coast, in the heart of Pennsylvania, and, of course, in the heart of New York State, where New York State's Democratic leadership refuses to let that be brought online, let that be developed, benefiting the New York tax base, New York workers, and New York consumers.

That gas field just in Pennsylvania and New York alone, Madam Speaker, some believe it is larger and more lucrative than the largest gas field that we know of in Qatar in the Persian Gulf. Yet, we will never see a pipeline from Pennsylvania to East Coast ports under this administration and possibly under any other future Democratic leadership.

If the war in Ukraine showed Europe and the world anything-- anything--it is that Russia cannot be trusted any longer, if they were ever, to be a reliable source to Europe for their energy consumption needs.

The United States stands ready to export more liquefied natural gas to Europe, but the pipelines and other infrastructure don't fully exist in this country in order to have that impact

to help our allies and partners in Europe and Asia in the short run. We need to make that investment.

Second, I have a solution for Democrats that should meet all of their objectives for world energy reliance and consistent with their climate objectives. It is clean; it is renewable; and we can export it to developing nations: nuclear energy.

International financial institutions, like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, will not, or are very reluctant, to finance any nuclear power expansion in Europe, yet the countries of Central Europe are demanding it. They want that energy diversity. They want an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

Yet, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in which the United States is a shareholder, turns a blind eye to clean, renewable, dependable nuclear energy. The EBRD insists on financing green energy projects to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars yet ignores this commonsense, all-of-the-above strategy.

Today's reactor designs are not the plants of yesteryear. They are not the plants of lore at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania or Chernobyl. They are safe and reliable.

For many, the top concern has been what we do with nuclear waste. Research in recent years has significantly advanced, and today, we have the ability to recycle nuclear waste components to produce even more abundant energy. Nuclear power plants in France have the ability to do this, but we don't currently do it here in the U.S.

Recently, I visited Entergy's Nuclear One facility in Russellville, Arkansas, and saw the nuclear waste byproducts that could be repurposed for future energy needs.

Further, I learned that the process to lengthen the life of an existing nuclear plant here in the United States, much less build a new one, is an immense tangle of regulatory red tape that takes years to navigate and millions of dollars of out-of-pocket fees. We in Congress can do a better job streamlining that kind of review.

When America leads in research and development, that knowledge and the resulting benefits are exported around the world. We can only export that success if we have the successful policies in place to spur that development.

We cannot expect the developing nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, or here in the Western Hemisphere to power their growing cities and their growing-in-wealth populations by wind and solar alone principally because the issues with storage deficiencies and production of energy from renewables efficiencies that remain, while improving, in the years ahead. Solely depending on that is unrealistic.

When America does not have the will to export this kind of R&D, those countries will turn to bad economic actors like China and Russia.

Energy policy is a long-term investment in the needs of not only our future but around the globe. Our globe needs 100 million barrels equivalent per day to power our homes and our economies.

As more and more countries develop and their people grow in wealth and prosperity, their energy needs will rise, Madam Speaker, not shrink.

We cannot wait and have nothing to offer, and we certainly don't want to impose California's energy policies on the world and expect a good outcome. We should be investing in all of our energy options.

That is why House Republicans in the weeks ahead, just as we started out here in our first week, will be bringing policies to this House floor to unleash an all-of-an-above energy strategy--oil, natural gas, nuclear, and, of course, renewables like wind and solar. They all play a part.

The mistakes of our policies today under this President mean we don't have the energy capacity and dependability that we need not only today but tomorrow. This unleashing policy by House Republicans not only puts America first, but it puts families across the globe first--first in opportunity, first in food and fuel security, and first in prosperity.

Appreciating the Public Service of Anushree Jumde

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Anushree Jumde, a cherished member of my district staff.

Recently, Anushree joined Attorney General Tim Griffin's team as the director of the Office of Community Relations.

Anushree, who is lovingly known around our district as A.J., came to Arkansas from India at age 11. She is a proud alum of the University of Central Arkansas, where she graduated in 2011, and she earned her graduate degree at the Bush School at Texas A&M.

A.J.'s public service began shortly thereafter, when she joined my predecessor, then-Representative Tim Griffin, in the office representing the Second Congressional District. She served as an intern and later as the district representative while working for Tim.

When I was elected to Congress in 2014 and took the oath in 2015, A.J. joined my team as a district representative and later became my trusted district director.

Anushree deeply cares for all the constituents in my district, and now in her role for the Attorney General, she deeply cares for all the citizens of Arkansas. If someone needed a passport with 5 hours' notice or help with a visa, she worked tirelessly to make that happen for central Arkansans.

Throughout my time in Congress, Anushree has continuously been dedicated to serving the people of central Arkansas.

I thank Anushree for her decade of service, and I look forward to the work that she will continue to do for our great State.

Highlighting the Mission of the Arkansas Martin Luther King, Jr.

Commission

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight the mission of the Arkansas Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission.

For 30 years, the commission has led in community outreach and education. The commission is ably led by its executive director, DuShun Scarbrough.

A division of the Arkansas Department of Education, the MLK Jr. Commission seeks to promote and preserve the life and legacy of Dr. King throughout the Natural State.

The commission's outreach projects of promoting education and appreciation for history and encouragement of our youth to engage in positive leadership development and roles within their communities has been outstanding.

I am proud to have been involved with the commission over the years and watch it evolve into one of the most active in our entire country. The work of our commission has been praised by Dr. King's daughter, Dr. Bernice King.

On the upcoming Martin Luther King Day, I am honored to celebrate the milestone of the commission's 30th anniversary and look forward to continuing to watch its impact on our youth and our communities for years to come.

Commemorating the Life of Hank Browne

Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor today to commemorate the life of a good friend and great leader in our State, Hank Browne, who passed away last month at the age of 82.

Mr. Browne was born in Oklahoma before moving to Arkansas in his youth, where he graduated from high school in Perryville in 1956. After 4 years of service in the Navy, he received a management degree from Little Rock University, now the UA Little Rock.

In 1975, Hank Browne founded Freight Sales Furniture in North Little Rock, which is now known around the region, Arkansas and beyond, as Hank's Fine Furniture.

In addition to leading and expanding Hank's for over two decades, Mr. Browne was an active member of our community. A passionate outdoorsman and conservationist, Hank was a valued and dedicated member of the board of directors at the Nature Conservancy in Arkansas.

The impact of Hank Browne on our community will not be forgotten, and I thank him for his years of philanthropy in our State and business leadership. My prayers are with his wife, Cathy, and his children.

Recognizing Nicholas Covington, Logan Simon, and Wade Simon

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize three welding students from St. Joseph's High School in Conway, Arkansas.

Last month, Nicholas Covington, Logan Simon, and Wade Simon were selected out of 150 welding students to represent the Conway Area Career Center in SkillsUSA, a State competition held in Hot Springs.

SkillsUSA is a partnership of students, teachers, and industry leaders working together across the country to make sure that we have a fully skilled workforce.

The winning team at the statewide competition will receive full scholarships to the welding program at the University of Arkansas Community College at Morrilton and could have the opportunity to participate in both national and world welding competitions.

I congratulate these students for their accomplishment, and I look forward to seeing the results from the SkillsUSA competition.

Congratulating Mary Smith

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mary Smith for her two decades of service to the people of Conway.

Last month, Mayor Bart Castleberry of Conway and the Conway City Council recognized Ms. Smith's 19 years as an alderwoman.

Ms. Smith's compassion, insight, and wisdom were greatly appreciated by those around her. She is a beloved member of the Conway community.

I wish her all the best in her next endeavors, and I thank Mary for her years of service to the city of Conway.

Recognizing the Museum of Discovery

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Museum of Discovery for winning the 2022 Roy L. Shafer Leading Edge Award for Resilience.

This award, presented by the Association of Science and Technology Centers, recognizes organizations that have overcome significant and specific adversarial impacts on their museums, yet were able to use that hardship to promote their mission and actually grow their potential. This award is touted as the science museum equivalent of an Oscar.

The Little Rock-based Museum of Discovery and their exceptional staff received this award for how they rebounded from a 6-month facility closure due to flooding caused from a burst pipe in the terrible winter storm in February 2021.

The museum used this time to repair and extend their virtual operating capabilities, build on what they had started during the COVID-19 pandemic, and through this tactical shift, they were able to deliver an immersive and deeply educational virtual experience to thousands during this period of repair.

I am proud to honor the Museum of Discovery for their dedication and hard work after a disaster that made them stronger and better for all that they educate in science and technology.

Congratulating Paul Browning

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Paul Browning, the assistant fire chief of the city of Morrilton, Arkansas.

Paul recently announced his retirement after 3 decades of service with the Morrilton department.

Just before his departure, Paul was given the opportunity to present the department's newest captain with his captain's badge. The recipient? His son, Joseph Browning, who had been with the department 15 years.

Paul presented Joseph with his original captain's badge as a token of his promotion.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate Joseph on his promotion and congratulate Paul on his retirement. I thank them both for their dedication and service to the community of Morrilton.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate our incredible new House Democratic leadership team: Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar. It is a dawn of a new day here in Congress, as a new generation takes on the solemn responsibility of leadership.

Leader Jeffries has been tireless in his work to put people over politics. His steady leadership as chair of our Democratic Caucus, uniting our Members, harnessing their talent and diversity, and fighting tirelessly to make life better for American people is a source of inspiration for me and so many others.

It is also a privilege to be here with my good friend Tom Cole, someone who I respect greatly and who I know greatly respects this institution. We sit on opposite ends of the dais, but I admire Mr. Cole's leadership and the example he sets. Even when we don't see eye to eye, I am proud of our work to build an atmosphere of respectful dialogue on the Rules Committee.

We have done so not just among our Members but among our hardworking staff, and I thank our minority and majority staff, led by Don Sisson and Kelly Dixon, for all of their hard work.

I look forward to working with Mr. Cole and his team this Congress to continue our collaboration on issues of shared concern.

Mr. Speaker, as Leader Jeffries put it so succinctly this weekend, our Republican friends campaigned on the claim that they would fight against inflation and fight for the American people. Instead, all they have done is come to Washington and fight with each other.

In fact, what has become crystal clear over the past few days is the extent to which the Republican Party has been hijacked by an extremist MAGA faction, a faction not interested in governing but in their own egos, a faction not interested in compromise but in their own power, a faction not interested in putting people over politics but instead interested in putting their own political ambition over the people we serve.

Now here we are, nearly a week later, considering their deeply flawed rules package, the first legislation on the floor by this new majority, and they are using it to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, attack women's access to abortion, make it easier for big oil companies to pollute, and interfere in ongoing criminal investigations into President Trump.

They are making it easier for billionaires and big corporations to avoid paying their taxes. Is that part of their contract with America? Is that their big plan to help everyday people? Because most people who read this package would think it must be a joke.

What I am concerned about is not just what is written down here. I am concerned by the backroom deals that Speaker McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus in exchange for their votes. Like Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace said just this weekend: ``We don't have any idea what promises were made.''

This is unconscionable. We are only 1 week into this, and this is how they are running this place.

There is a report out by Punchbowl News, and let me read it. It said: ``There is also a secret 3-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become Speaker--three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY 2022 levels, a debt ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments, and more.'' Is that what the Majority Leader meant when he talked about a new day and transparency?

These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They are essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right. The same Members of Congress who held this body hostage last week are the ones who ran interference for the January 6 insurrectionists, who tried to overturn a free and fair election.

Even the new Speaker of the House voted to overturn the 2020 elections. We couldn't even get a public acknowledgment from him on the 2-year anniversary of that horrific day, not even a tweet.

It is clear that Republicans welcomed the election deniers into their ranks with open arms, and now they are reaping what they have sown. The insurrectionists are in charge.

I am reminded of the words of President Kennedy: ``In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.''

The American people get it. They rejected extremism in the last two elections. That is why they picked Joe Biden, and that is why the red wave turned into a pink splash.

My Republican friends still aren't listening, and in fact, they are still empowering the extremists. Don't take my word for it. Let's go through their rules package.

They are giving a single Member the ability to remove the Speaker at any time, letting a small, far-right faction hold their leadership hostage.

They are trying to shut down criminal investigations into the former President's wrongdoing.

They are making it easier to slash taxes on billionaire corporations while dismantling the social safety net.

They are giving committee chairs unbalanced discretion over which witnesses can testify; rejecting pandemic safety procedures like remote voting; trying to force an end to congressional staff unionization; and the icing on the cake, a new subcommittee to push QAnon conspiracies and launch fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. What is next, a rule requiring we all wear tinfoil hats?

This package is disrespectful, not just to this institution, but to the people who sent us here to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Congressional Budget Office report from today titled: ``Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act.'' This nonpartisan report says that the GOP's IRS funding bill will add $114 billion to the national debt, so when people talk about taking steps to reduce the national debt, I am not sure what they are talking about.

[From the Congressional Budget Office, January 9, 2023]

Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business

Taxpayer Protection Act

Summary: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for

legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those

procedures are shown above.

The Congressional Budget Office adheres to laws and

Congressional rules concerning the federal budget and to a

set of principles (called the Scorekeeping Guidelines)

created by the Congress. Those principles guide how the House

and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget

Office, and the Office of Management and Budget attribute

budgetary effects to legislation, with the goal of promoting

consistent treatment of estimated effects among those

agencies. (For more information on those guidelines, see

Congressional Budget Office, CBO Explains Budgetary

Scorekeeping Guidelines, January 2021, www.cbo.gov/ publication/56507.)

When a provision in an authorization bill provides funding

for administrative or program management activities, such as

when the IRS receives additional funding for administrative

activities, spending of those amounts can result in increases

in receipts. Guideline 14, however, directs scorekeepers to

exclude those increases when estimating the budgetary effects

of proposals that would provide additional mandatory funding

for such activities.

Guideline 14 was adopted in part to avert cases in which

possible, but uncertain, receipts were used to offset near-

term increases in spending resulting from the same bill. That

guideline is asymmetrical, however. That is, even though

increased receipts cannot be credited to a bill that would

increase administrative funding, estimated receipt losses

that might result from a decrease in such funding are

included in the estimated budgetary effects.

H.R. 23 would rescind unobligated funds provided by

paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4),

and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117-169. CBO estimates

that the bill would decrease outlays by $71 billion and

decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period.

Both of those effects are included in accordance with

Guideline 14.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Women's Health Protection Act.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) to discuss our proposal.

We heard a lot about inflation, but none of the first 12 bills that my Republican friends are bringing up have anything to do with inflation or mention inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my friends that over a million Americans died of COVID, including a Member-elect who was supposed to be sworn in in the last Congress. These remote procedures undoubtedly saved lives of Members and staff here in this Chamber. So, please, let's not diminish what the point of all that was about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is taking credit for the 72- hour rule, which we created in our rules package, but thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democrat whip.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that the first bill they are doing is going to add $114 billion to the deficit. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned the 72-hour rule. Once again, I will say: You are welcome. Then she talked about this being the most open and transparent rule ever. Maybe the gentlewoman can share with us the secret 3-page addendum that we are reading about, because none of us have seen it. So much for transparency. I guess she is not going to share that with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for mentioning the 72-hour rule which has been mentioned many times. But I wrote it, and I thank the gentleman for keeping it.

But when I hear people talking about balanced budgets, give me a break. The first bill that my friends are bringing to the floor, according to CBO, adds $114 billion to the debt. We don't need any lectures from anybody on that side about balancing the budget. Give me a break.

Maybe the gentleman can, again, share with us the secret addendum that apparently was negotiated behind closed doors, so we actually know what agreements were made.

Four days and 15 votes, and there is only one change in the rules package going from five to be able to vacate the Chair to one. Well, there is a lot more to it. We all know that, but that is a big secret. So much for transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that in the vast majority of cases we did comply with the 72-hour rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, following the vote on the previous question, Representative DeLauro will offer a motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, again, let me just ask, will anybody on the other side share with us the secret 3-page addendum that Speaker McCarthy negotiated with the Freedom Caucus so we can know what else was decided on, given away? I guess not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my friend, but really? I mean, come on.

What were the last 4 days about? I mean, again, days and days, and 15 roll call votes, and reporting by multiple sources tell us that there is this signed agreement with the House Freedom Caucus that deals with some of the most controversial concessions.

So, you know, I know it exists. It will come out sooner or later. Everybody is talking about transparency and openness. It would be nice if there was a little bit more transparency and openness from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, let me continue what I was beginning in the last exchange.

At least one GOP office apparently has the much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum. ``We are taking a look at it . . . we're just going through it,'' Rep. Ken Calvert, a Steering Committee member, tells Axios. Asked if Members have received a copy: ``I don't know if everybody has.''

Again, don't come to the floor and talk about transparency and openness and a new day. This is backroom politics. That is what this is about, secret deals that no one is going to know anything about until it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last time House Republicans were in charge, they ended their time in power with a government shutdown. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they shut the government down and walked away.

Upon taking power once again, they began with a legislative shutdown, a shutdown where a far-right fringe held the incoming Republican leadership hostage and got them to give away everything, including their own dignity.

What is clear from all of this is that the Republican Party no longer cares about governing. This rules package is exhibit number one.

The American people sent us here because they want us to put people over politics. Sadly, this rules package puts politics first, empowering the extremists who are only interested in their own power.

As I have said again and again, if this new majority wants to work together in good faith, my door is open. If this is their plan, they have clearly chosen to become a party that embraces election deniers and extremists, and Democrats will not go along to get along.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had some harsh words for this rules package. Call it ``tough love.'' I care very deeply about this institution, about the work we do here, and the awesome responsibility of the decisions we make. I am glad that my friends kept the McGovern rule on the 72-hour and the McGovern rule that committees have to do hearings and markups before they come to the Rules Committee.

We weren't perfect, but overwhelmingly we kept our word.

This legislation does a great disservice to the people we represent, and it does not live up to the high standards that we should have for this institution. I believe that calling this House to a higher standard is the right thing to do.

But let me be clear that my criticism is reserved for the resolution we are considering and not for the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), whom I respect and admire as a person even when we strongly disagree, as we do today.

These rules are a giveaway to the far right, but this Congress need not be. If my Republican colleagues want to get anything done, it is clear that they are going to have to work together with Democrats to get things done.

Let's end the extremism and put people over politics to get stuff done.

People do not want government shutdowns.

People do not want to see us default on our financial obligations.

People want us to get stuff done and to keep the lights on.

The last two elections were a rejection of extremism. My friends predicted an overwhelmingly Republican majority in the last election, and instead, they got a pink splash because the American people, Democrats, Independents, and a lot of Republicans said: You are too extreme.

So put the extremism behind you. I urge the Speaker to work with Democrats and not just work with the small fringe group in the Republican Conference, but to work in a way to move the people's agenda forward.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, a ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21. Once again, House Republicans are showing their true colors--bringing a bill to the floor that helps their Big Oil friends and hurts hardworking Americans.

This is a reckless and extreme bill. It will hamstring the single most important tool the Biden administration has used to fight Putin's price hike on gasoline. The chairwoman mentioned affordability, but by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Biden administration helped bring down gas prices by over $1.50 per gallon. Republicans call that politicizing

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I call that providing real relief to the American people at the gas pump.

Again, Democrats are addressing affordability trying to bring down high gas prices; and now, after promising to lower costs for American families, House Republicans want to pass this bill that will raise gas prices at the pump.

Make no mistake, Mr. Chair, that is exactly what this bill would do. It would prevent the Department of Energy from using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to respond to price hikes until Big Oil is given open access to drill on public lands.

Restricting the Federal Government's best tool for decreasing gas prices in the middle of a global energy crisis defies any logic. After all, this is a tool that administrations of both parties--Democrat and Republican--have successfully used in the past.

It is baffling to me to see Republicans oppose President Biden's release of oil from the reserve considering that in recent years, Republican administrations withdrew even more due to oil sales that they themselves mandated when they were in control of Congress. House Republicans have also used the reserve as a piggy bank to withdraw nearly 300 million barrels of oil to pay for their priorities. Yet now they want to feign outrage that President Biden withdrew fewer barrels to lower prices at the pump.

This is not serious legislation, Mr. Chair, but instead a political stunt. Republicans are just upset that President Biden stood up and actually used all the tools at his disposal to fight back against high gas prices for American families.

This bill actually fights against American families and against addressing affordability.

The Secretary of Energy was clear in a letter she wrote to Chair Rodgers and me last week.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of that letter.

The Secretary of Energy,

Washington, DC, January 18, 2023.

Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers,

Chair, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone:

Congratulations again on your re-elections to Congress and

selections as Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee

on Energy and Commerce. I look forward to working closely

with you in the 118th Congress.

I write to express the Department of Energy's serious

concerns about H.R. 21, the Strategic Production Response

Act. From responding swiftly to natural disasters to

executing a historic release of oil in response to Putin's

invasion of Ukraine, the Administration's use of the

Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) has been critical to

ensuring adequate oil supply and lowering gasoline prices for

American families. This bill would significantly weaken this

critical energy security tool, resulting in more oil supply

shortages in times of crisis and higher gasoline prices for

Americans.

Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine created the worst

global energy crisis in decades. The President took

unprecedented action with allies and partners, releasing oil

from our strategic reserves, to stabilize global oil supply

and gasoline prices. We have heard directly from industry

over the last several months that these actions were

essential to maintaining supply.

And Americans see the results for themselves at the pump.

Today, gasoline prices are down by $1.70 per gallon from

their peak this summer. In fact, gasoline prices are now

below where they were before Russia's invasion. That was far

from a foregone conclusion a year ago. The Treasury

Department estimates that the Administration's SPR actions

reduced prices for American consumers at the pump by as much

as 40 cents per gallon. In addition to saving Americans

money, the SPR releases should provide a good deal for

taxpayers, by selling oil at a high price, with a planned

refill of the SPR at lower prices.

If enacted, H.R. 21 would make it harder to take such

action quickly to increase supply when the market needs it

most--driving up prices during crises. H.R. 21 would

significantly interfere with the United States' ability to

release oil collectively through the International Energy

Agency during an emergency supply shortage, as was done in

early March 2022. And H.R. 21 would severely restrict the

Department's ability to lend oil when disruptions occur due

to natural disasters or pipeline outages. Just last month,

when the Keystone Pipeline was suddenly shut down, refiners

in Texas and Louisiana were sent scrambling to keep

facilities running. This Administration--like those of both

parties have previously--quickly lent out oil to help

maintain operations, avoid shortages, and prevent further

price spikes. H.R. 21 would undermine our ability to take

such decisive action in response to future disruptions.

I believe it is essential that the SPR can continue to

address supply disruptions by rapidly providing oil in

response to emergencies. Arbitrarily requiring the completion

of reports related to energy production on Federal lands--a

matter which the Department of Energy does not control--would

only delay such critical action and increase prices for

Americans when energy disruptions occur.

Today, there is nothing standing in the way of domestic oil

production. In fact, oil production is up by 1 million

barrels per day under President Biden and is on track to

reach a new record high this year. Oil and gas companies are

currently sitting on approximately 9,000 approved but unused

permits to drill, and billions in record profits. They do not

need another giveaway.

I appreciate your consideration of these concerns, and I

hope we can work together on strategies to ensure American

energy productivity, security, and affordability.

Sincerely,

Jennifer M. Granholm.

Mr. Chair, in that letter, Secretary Granholm wrote that by hamstringing the administration, this bill will result in ``more oil supply shortages in times of crisis and higher gasoline prices for Americans.''

The President also recognizes this bill is a bad deal for the American people, and that is why he said that he would veto it if it ever got to his desk.

Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record the text of the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 21--Strategic Production Response Act--Rep. McMorris Rodgers, R-WA

and 31 Cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 21, the Strategic

Production Response Act. The bill would significantly weaken

a critical energy security tool, resulting in more oil supply

shortages and higher gas prices for working families.

This Administration's use of the Strategic Petroleum

Reserve (SPR) has been essential to protecting our energy

security and to lowering gas prices for Americans. Following

Putin's further invasion of Ukraine last year, President

Biden authorized the largest-ever emergency release from the

SPR, in coordination with historic releases from allies and

partners. The results speak for themselves: today, gasoline

prices are $1.60 per gallon lower than their peak this summer

and below their pre-invasion levels. That was far from a

foregone conclusion: the Treasury Department estimates that

SPR actions reduced prices at the pump by as much as 40 cents

per gallon.

If enacted, H.R. 21 would significantly weaken America's

ability to take such decisive action to increase supply and

lower prices in times of crisis. Putin has tried to use

energy supply and high prices as a strategy to weaken the

United States and Europe's resolve to defend Ukraine. By

interfering with the United States' ability to release, oil

collectively, this legislation would help Putin's war aims.

In addition, H.R. 21 would severely restrict the

Administration's ability to increase oil supply and prevent

price spikes in response to natural disasters or pipeline

outages-as Administrations of both parties have done.

By arbitrarily requiring completion of a report related to

energy production on Federal lands, H.R. 21 makes it harder

to provide relief to Americans during energy disruptions

globally and at home. Moreover, there is nothing currently

standing in the way of domestic oil production. Production is

up by more than 1 million barrels per day under President

Biden and is on track to reach a new record this year. Oil

and gas companies are currently sitting on thousands of

unused but approved permits that they can use to further

increase production right now.

Because H.R. 21 will jeopardize our energy security and

increase gas prices for working families, the Administration

strongly opposes the bill.

If Congress were to pass this bill, the President would

veto it.

Mr. Chair, it is, frankly, stunning that after about 2 years of Republicans talking such a big game on energy security and energy independence, that one of the Republicans' first bills this Congress is a proposal that would seriously undermine both.

The truth is that Republicans' decades-old drill-baby-drill mentality is outdated, it is reckless, and it simply cannot and will not protect Americans from the volatile price movements of a global commodity. Our country has adopted this mentality for decades, and it just doesn't work.

The United States is already the world's top producer of both oil and gas, and the fossil fuel industry already controls large portions of U.S. public lands and waters, and it isn't using most of it. Right now, fossil fuel companies control over 26 million acres of U.S. public lands, half of which is going unused.

The problem is not a shortage of land or leases.

Republicans only want the American people to think that that is the case because they want to keep doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the bottom line is, Big Oil doesn't want to pump oil because that would lower prices. They don't want to do it. They don't want to address the issue of affordability with gas prices. They don't want to pump more oil.

No matter how much we drill anyway, doubling down on our fossil fuel dependency is exactly what has kept us dependent on the global market, and this global market where we have oil from other countries is largely controlled by dictators and adversaries on the other side of the world.

So, Mr. Chair, this bill is not serious. It is yet another old, tired, one-page bill that shows just how antiquated and misplaced Republican priorities are. We should be spending our time on serious, thoughtful proposals that actually address our energy challenges and opportunities, that lower gas prices as opposed to raising them, and to ensure that Americans and their jobs don't get left behind as the rest of the world transitions to clean energy.

Mr. Chair, if you really care about bringing down gas prices, you would oppose this bill.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), who is the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and who has worked so hard on clean energy issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the former chair of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis who has done so much on clean energy issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the gentlewoman from Washington State on her election as the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 22, the Protecting America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act.

First, let's take a moment to remember how we got here. In 2015, when Republicans last controlled Congress, they lifted the 40-year ban on crude oil exports at the urging of their Big Oil friends. This irresponsible policy change allowed companies to export American- owned barrels of oil to our adversaries, including China.

Again, that was a Republican policy pushed by House Republicans 8 years ago. As a result, our crude oil exports to China surged, averaging a half million barrels every day during the last year of the Trump administration. China hoarded these barrels to build up its own petroleum reserves.

Back in 2015, I strongly opposed this Republican bill out of concern that it would harm our energy security and, ultimately, lead to increased prices at the pump for hardworking American families. It turns out I was right.

Now, Republicans seem to be complaining about the very circumstances that they created, all to reward their Big Oil friends.

Lifting the export ban damaged our economic security. Refineries across the country, including in my home State of New Jersey, have closed since the export ban was lifted, in no small part due to oil companies' desires to seek greater profits abroad rather than send their oil to refineries here at home.

A GAO analysis in 2020 showed that domestic refineries suffered because of the export ban being lifted, a suffering that was then inflicted on the thousands of hardworking Americans whose jobs were destroyed.

If Republicans were serious about addressing this issue, they would have brought forward a bill that banned all exports of crude oil to China. SPR barrels sold to Chinese firms represented only 2 percent of all the oil we sent to China last year--only 2 percent from the SPR.

If we truly want to address China using American oil to build its reserves, let's actually take a serious look at that rather than skirt around the issue because Republicans are scared of Big Oil's wrath.

Why are Republicans only banning SPR sales to China? Representatives Houlahan and Bacon introduced a bill last Congress that prohibited SPR sales to Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any country under U.S. sanctions. That bill had 37 bipartisan cosponsors. Are my Republican colleagues okay with exporting oil to Putin's Russia in the midst of a war on Ukraine?

It also speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, that this is their first energy priority after regaining the House majority. Over the last 2 years, Democrats passed the most significant climate law in our Nation's history. We also passed the bipartisan infrastructure law that will modernize our energy infrastructure. Republicans' first energy bill this Congress isn't about investing in the resiliency of our electric grid or making American energy cleaner and cheaper. Instead, they are just recycling an old one-page bill that takes a minor step in undoing the damage that they themselves created.

Republicans are here today denying their own history and muddying the truth by trying to place the blame on President Biden, but President Biden successfully used the SPR to lower prices at the pump and provide relief to American families.

When gas prices increased last year, the Biden administration took decisive action to bring gas prices back down by releasing oil from the SPR. The administration released an unprecedented 1 million barrels of oil a day, providing critical domestic supply to make up for shortages in the aftermath of the war in Ukraine.

This was a commonsense strategy that worked, and thanks largely to President Biden's actions, gasoline prices have fallen an average of $1.90 per gallon nationwide since their peak in June.

One thing that episode underscores is that fossil fuel prices are volatile. As long as we rely on gasoline and other fossil fuels to meet America's energy needs, our country's energy security and affordability remain at the whims of dictators like Putin on the other side of the world.

While I agree, just like I did back in 2015, that we should not export U.S. crude oil to China, I want to stress that this bill could have been improved through bipartisan cooperation, regular order, and committee consideration. If Republicans hope to actually enact legislation, this is not a pathway to success.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who chaired our Select Committee on the Climate Crisis in the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), a member of our committee and a leader on environmental issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), who has been working on this issue for some time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), who is a leader on energy issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I listened to the majority leader, and I want to stress that history is not on his side.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans created this problem by lifting the ban on the export of crude oil to China and the rest of the world when they were in the majority. This bill does nothing to solve the problem.

Only 2 percent of the oil that is exported to China comes from the SPR. Even if this bill passes, which it won't in the Senate, it will still allow the other 98 percent of crude oil to go to China.

The consequence of the Republican policy was to destroy jobs at American refineries, including my home State of New Jersey, because they allowed the crude oil to be exported, and as a result, a lot of the refineries closed, and we lost jobs here.

Don't tell me that this is a bill that is going to help our country, help jobs. It is just the opposite. It is just masking the reality, which is they want to continue to sell oil to China, to Russia, to Iran, and to all our adversaries.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time because they have more time on their side.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time until we are prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

It certainly is no surprise that the oil industry would support this bill because this bill does absolutely nothing to prevent them from selling to China and to Russia and all our adversaries.

Only 2 percent of the oil that is sold to China comes from the SPR, so they will continue to be able to sell to whoever they please.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until we close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman talks about how China has built up its reserves, its petroleum reserves. It is because you, when you were in the majority, stopped the ban on export, and they used that opportunity to build up their reserves.

This has nothing to do with the SPR. Mr. Speaker, 98 percent of the oil that is exported to China is not from the SPR.

So they used the opportunity since 2015 when you lifted the ban to build up their petroleum reserves on your watch.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself compelled to point out that listening to Republican arguments today, you would think that they have been sacred stewards of the SPR, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

In fact, when Republicans had the majority in both the House and the Senate from 2015 to 2019, they passed six bills, none of which had anything to do with energy, that raided the SPR for a total of 260 million barrels of crude.

Now the Republicans stand here criticizing President Biden's usage of the SPR, and it is laughable. President Biden's usage of the SPR has helped lower gas prices by nearly $1.80 per gallon since their peak.

While the Republicans want to pretend they are tough on China, it is really the opposite that is true. Last year, the Biden administration was forced to sell 20 million barrels from the SPR under one of those laws that I mentioned earlier that passed a Republican-controlled Congress.

The Republicans didn't include any restrictions, no restrictions or stipulations on that sale, and as a result, the administration was forced to sell to the highest bidders, including a firm owned by the People's Republic of China.

Again, I am going to stress in closing, the Republicans caused China to have a huge petroleum reserve by lifting the ban on crude oil in 2015 when they were in the majority.

Prior to 2015 when the Republicans lifted the ban on exports of crude oil, we had that ban in place for 40 years--40 years--and then in 2015, they came in, and they lifted the ban, so they caused this problem.

During the Trump administration, the amount of crude oil that was sold to China was unbelievable. As a result, the petroleum reserve, you know, increased significantly in China. They took advantage of the situation.

Now, if you really wanted to do something today, first of all, you would say that the SPR should not only be banned by selling oil from the SPR to China, but you should say that you can't sell it to Russia. You can't sell it to Iran. You can't sell it to North Korea.

You can't sell it to our adversaries, which is exactly what the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlahan's bill, does on a bipartisan basis.

But even beyond that, you could simply say no crude oil should be sold at all, exported at all, or certainly not exported to our adversaries, and that is not what is happening here.

So this is a problem that was created by the Republicans, and they pretend that they are doing something about it today, but, in fact, they are not.

The reason is because they are with the Big Oil. They are with the special interests that want to sell this crude oil, continue to sell it overseas, and they don't care that it goes to our adversaries. That is the bottom line.

This bill is not going to accomplish anything, and so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.